Preaching the Gospel, Preparing a People | Learn More…

You are here

Prove Evolution Is False - Even Without the Bible

Login or Create an Account

With a UCG.org account you will be able to save items to read and study later!

Sign In | Sign Up

×

Can we prove that evolution is false without using the Bible? Certainly we can! Evolution is a scientific theory that stands or falls on the physical evidence. In fact, one can be an atheist, a person who doesn’t believe in God, and still not believe in evolution!

Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, as taught at school, is a biological explanation of how creatures have supposedly “evolved” or developed progressively through natural selection and variation (now known as mutation) over eons of time from the tiny cell to the largest creatures on earth today. What is taught in classrooms is not mere micro evolution—small changes within a species—but macro evolution, the change from one type of creature to another quite distinct life form.

What many evolutionists are trying to convince you of is that there is no need for a Creator since, as they say, evolution can substitute as the mechanism for creating and transforming life. They teach that life arose from non-life and evolved from simpler creatures to more complex life forms. In other words, the tiny cell eventually became an amoeba, then a lizard, then a monkey, and finally— you !

In order to remember key points that disprove Darwinian evolution—the “molecules to man” theory—we’ll use the acronym FALSE. (A few of these points also disprove the compromise of theistic evolution—the notion that God employed macroevolution over eons in forming the creatures we see on earth today.)

F for Fossils

A fossil is the preserved remains of a living thing. The fossil record around the earth extends an average of one mile deep. Below this level we come up with a blank slate as far as living, complex creatures are concerned.

I collect fossils of what are deemed the earliest type of complex creatures with hard bodies—trilobites. No previous ancestors of these arthropods have been found. Similar to some marine “bugs” we see today on the seashore that disappear into the sand when the waves retreat, trilobites had hard shells, all the basic organs, and complex eyes like those of flies, with hundreds of sophisticated lenses connected to the optic nerve going to the brain. Trilobite fossils are found around the earth, and in all cases the level of rock beneath them does not reveal other creatures with similar features.

As one source states: “The dominant life form was the now-extinct sea creature known as a trilobite, up to a foot long, with a distinctive head and tail, a body made up of several parts, and a complex respiratory system. But although there are many places on earth where 5,000 feet of sedimentary rock stretch unbroken and uniformly beneath the Cambrian [layer], not a single indisputable multi-celled fossil has been found there. It is ‘the enigma of paleontological [fossil studies] enigmas,’ according to Stephen Gould. Darwin himself said he could give ‘no satisfactory answer’ to why no fossils had been discovered. Today’s scientists are none the wiser” (Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe , 1982, pp. 26-27).

Question: If, after almost two centuries of digging beneath all the world’s continents, no previous ancestor of this first hard-bodied creature has been found, how then did the ubiquitous trilobite evolve? There should be some previous ancestor if evolution were true.

It’s like finding an exquisite watch on the seashore and yet never finding any previous primitive models of the watch on earth. If you reasoned as an evolutionist, you would deny there was a need for a watchmaker at all, maintaining that time, water, sand, minerals and actions of the elements are sufficient to producing a fully functional watch that runs. This is part of the reason it takes more faith to believe in evolution than in a Creator!

Further important evidence from the fossil record is the absence of transitional forms between species. Darwin was concerned that the thousands of intermediate stages between creatures needed to prove his theory were not in evidence, but he expected they would eventually be found. Yet those thousands of missing transitional forms are still missing!

Another reference explains: “If throughout past ages life was actually drifting over in one continual stream from one form to another, it is to be expected that as many samples of the intermediate stages between species should be discovered in fossil condition as of the species themselves … All should be in a state of flux. But these missing links are wanting. There are no fossils of creatures whose scales were changing into feathers or whose feet were changing into wings, no fossils of fish getting legs or of reptiles getting hair. The real task of the geological evolutionist is not to find ‘the’ missing link, as if there were only one. The task is to find those thousands upon thousands of missing links that connect the many fossil species with one another” (Byron Nelson, After Its Kind , 1970, pp. 60-62).

The absence of transitional forms is an insurmountable hurdle for theistic evolutionists as well. It also fits with our next point.

A for Assumption

When there is no real evidence, evolutionary scientists simply make assumptions.

If evolution were true, then where is the evidence of different types of animals now “evolving” into other types? Where is the evidence of cats, dogs and horses gradually turning into something else? We do see changes within species, but we do not see any changes into other species. And, as mentioned, we see no evidence of gradual change in the fossil record either. Yet evolutionists continue to assume that transitional forms must have existed.

In Darwin’s landmark book On the Origin of Species there are some 800 subjective clauses, with uncertainty repeatedly admitted instead of proof. Words such as “could,” “perhaps” and “possibly” plague the entire book.

Evolution is still called a theory—a possible explanation or assumption—because it is not testable according to the scientific method, as this would require thousands or millions of years. Evolutionists will counter that a theory is not a mere hypothesis but is a widely affirmed intellectual construct that generally appears to fit all the facts. Yet evolution in no way fits all the facts available. Evidence does not support it—and in many respects runs counter to it.

L for Life

The law of biogenesis as taught in biology class states that only life can produce life.

You’ve probably heard the famous question: Which came first, the chicken or the egg? It’s a real dilemma for an evolutionist to answer. An egg comes from a chicken, yet the chicken comes from an egg. How can there be one without the other?

To complicate matters even more, the chicken has to come from a fertilized egg that has the mixture of two different genetic strains from both its parents. So the problem of the origin of life and initial reproduction is still a mystery that evolutionary science cannot adequately answer.

Yet for someone who believes in special creation by a Creator, there is no dilemma here. First God made the male and female chickens, which produced the first fertilized egg—and the rest is history.

S for Symbiosis

When one living thing needs another different living thing to survive, it’s called a symbiotic relationship.

A good example of this is the relationship between bees and flowers. The bees need the nectar from some types of flowers to feed while these flowers need bees to pollinate them. Both depend on each other to exist and survive. The question for evolutionists is: How did these plants exist without the bees, and how did the bees exist without these plants?

Again, atheistic scientists are stumped. Theistic evolutionists are perplexed as well. Yet if you believe in a Creator who specially created the various forms of life on earth, the answer is simple—both were created at about the same time.

E for Engineering

All living things are exquisitely engineered or designed. Qualitatively, a bacterium is as majestically built for its purpose as a human body is for its function. Yet evolution says it’s only an illusion of design—that there is no real designer behind it. Reality is not an illusion! Living things are multi-functional, which means they do many complex things at the same time, something evolution with its step-by-step process has never been able to demonstrate.

One example of a living thing with exquisite engineering is the tree. It provides breathable oxygen for us while processing carbon dioxide, which would in high amounts in the air be toxic to us. It supplies wood, housing for birds, roots to limit erosion, fruit and seeds to eat, is biodegradable and gives shade. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, “A healthy tree provides a cooling effect that is equivalent to 10 room-size air conditioners operating 20 hours a day.” How could something so complex arise from a random, undirected evolutionary process?

Again, you need more “faith” to believe in blind evolution than in an all-knowing Creator who designed the marvelous tree in the first place.

Now you have five proofs that evolution is F-A-L-S-E and that special creation is true—and we didn’t even use the Bible. Remember the acronym FALSE when you read or hear about evolution—and do take time to read our Creator’s great book of truth! It has much to say regarding origins.

You might also be interested in...

There are logical reasons apart from Scripture's direct testimony to reject the...
There are logical reasons to accept the existence of a divine Creator apart...

    Comments

  • brotherjoseph

    Someone in the evolutionary theater years ago made the comment that if you put out a pile of building materials that remained for the length of time necessary, they would eventually assemble themselves into a structure. He also contended that if you seated a monkey at a piano, and again given enough time, that the monkey’s random plinking would eventually become organized and he would play Beethoven.
    Most thinking persons would not agree; after examining a building and it’s complexities, they would agree that it was planned, arranged, and constructed by an intelligent designer.
    Taking a look at any of Gods creations reveals highly complex design AND a the ability to repair itself and reproduce itself “according to it’s kind.”
    Man has yet to even understand the construction of an Amoeba, much less the much more complex creations. We have been studying God’s handiwork for over six thousand years; we have dissected much of His works including the Atom, but have yet to produce any remotely related creature or building block from nothingness.
    I enjoyed the little tale about the “worlds most prominent scientist getting to talk with God”. As the exchange goes; the scientist tells God, “We don’t need you anymore, we can even make a man now.” God is a bit surprised and asks the scientist to show him. The scientist agrees and arranges his equipment and then goes out to the garden and brings in a pail of earth to put in the machine. God says “Ahem, you must use your own soil, not mine.”

  • KARS

    Yahoo! I finally found my missing VT issue. I have read just about every article to my family yesterday; for it is now 12:22am. I liked this article it had me laughing so hard that I made up my own word. Anyway, having pets over the years, I know that God has given the animals the ability to learn something after repetitive lessons. And the way they learn is with a treat with one word commands. Other than that, they do what God designed them to do. I mean after all; can you train a bee to wash the dishes so you don’t have too?

  • AisforATHEIST

    Some of what you say is bang on. Most of what you say is incorrect. For instance “macroevolution” (or speciation as it is correctly known) is scientific fact. there have been many occasions where speciation has been observed. one of the more commonly referred to is A 14 year experiment done with Anolis Lizards. They were spread across 14 Caribbean islands that had no prior lizard populations. These environments differed. Over the course of the experiment, the lizards adapted to their surrounds, and formed *new species*. Scientists were able to predict exactly how each lizard population would evolve before seeing the results. With the process of Evolution, new species had been formed.

    Scientists at Michigan state Uni have successfully witnessed a new strain of E.Coli. They kept a frozen living fossil record. after noticing the change they revived different generations to find the point of mutation. they found pre-mutation cells did not have the ability to feed on citric acid under any circumstances. However post mutation cells did. The mutation was beneficial allowing the E.coli to feed on the citric acid and that colony flourished. It was a Naturally selected random mutation

  • Skip
    Hello AisforATHEIST, I was taught that mutation is not Evolution. Is that not correct? God wisely built into many living things the ability to adapt/change.
  • brotherjoseph

    Aisfor,
    You seem to have a bit of confusion between adaptation and evolution. If you take note of many of Gods creatures, you will find that they have been given the ability to adapt to changes in their environment or food supplies. Even the lowly virus adapts to attacks. This is all a part of the created creatures makeup in order to survive as these changes come upon them. A caucasian person has white skin until exposed to ultraviolet, he then turns brown as his body adapts to what could otherwise be a deadly attack at the cellular level. Many species have adapted or mutated, but none have evolved.

    I am continually amazed at how eagerly some embrace the evolution theory which proposes that eons of time passes while creatures make the minute changes that eventually makes them into a new creature. With those billions of changes, surely there would be billions of examples in the fossil record of intermediate species. There is however, not one example of an intermediate specimen. We find some extinct species fossils, we continue to find formerly unknown species fossils, but still no intermediate fossils. Why do you think that is? Because Charlie’s theory is simply imagination.

  • Nadine Yacoub
    I completely agree with this article and the arguments! I recently had a debate in my Biology class and the topic we were discussing concerned evolution. I was in the anti-evolutionist group. Here is an argument that I discovered that could prove why evolution is false… without using the Bible: 1. The Chromosome Count Proves Evolution Is Wrong There is no evidence - scientific - that a species can change the number of chromosomes within the DNA. Each species has a fixed chromosome count. Each species is locked into its chromosome count that cannot change. For example, if an animal developed an extra chromosome or lost a chromosome because of some deformity, then it could not successfully mate with a female. So it could not be passed along to the next generation. To conclude, evolving a new species is scientifically and physically impossible.
  • Nadine Yacoub
    Here are a few more arguments that could prove evolution is false without the use of any religious books: 1) The fossil record: The fossil record shows species appearing suddenly and the link from man to ape is missing in the fossil record. 2) DNA: There is a very big difference between a chimpanzee’s DNA and a humans DNA. They both have different intelligence and different anatomies 3) Happening Today: If evolution were an actual procedure, then we should see it happening today. But we don’t.
  • Carnuntum
    @Nadine Yacoub Your arguments are absolutely erroneous. 1) You claim that an animal with a missing or extra chromosome cannot successfully produce offspring. That is untrue. People with Trisomy 21 (although rarely) can successfully produce a child, and thus debunks your point. 2) Just because we have not found these fossils, means that they do not exist? That is akin to saying that because I have not yet found a book I am looking for at a bookstore, surely it must not exist. 3) In fact, the DNA of humans and chimpanzees are 98.5 percent identical. That said, chimpanzees and humans share a common ancestor that existed millions of years ago, and because evolution does not occur in patterns, it is only logical to assume that we would have differences. 4) This argument is silly. Evolution in complex creatures occurs gradually over millions of years. For us to see it happening, we would have to live for millions of years. However, we have seen evolution occur in less complex creatures such as bacteria. This is why bacteria become immune to medicines meant to kill it
  • KARS
    What is important here is faith & repentance. If we spend our time arguing about when the LORD made His creations; then we are wasting our time. The fact is He made them and that is that. He wants us to change ourselves to become more Godly in character, that is what is important. Stop making it so hard. Take a good look outside and what do you see? His magnificent works around you.
  • DanielSnedden
    I recently came accross a video on Youtube which has an animation of the flood in Noah’s time. It lines up with God’s account in Genesis of how the earth was formed and explains many of the geographic anomolies which non believers cannot explain in their models. The Harvard graduate’s name is Walter Brown and he calls it the “Hydroplate Theory”. It explains coal formation and why there are manmade items sometimes found in the deposits. (Hammers, jewelry, metal containers, etc.) It also explains why dinosauers and human activity are found together. It is a very interesting idea and deserves serious consideration. Thanks for the article.
  • mm2smile
    In response to Curnuntum: 1) In the bigger picture, if a person with trisomy 21 reproduces, does their offspring always have an extra chromosome as well? Have we seen a species with 28 chromosomes start to consistently and generationally have 30? 2) Maybe your argument would be true for 1 book in one bookstore, but when you are looking for a whole series in every bookstore you can find, and talking to every expert, and still haven’t found evidence if it’d existence, you probably will question it’s existence. 3) the DNA may be very similar, but there are far more differences than DNA can account for. Humans have far greater cognition, and much more complex society and commerce than any any other species. Is there evidence of any other species even having full fledged commerce? 4) again, bacteria does evolve and adapt, but we don’t have any evidence of it becoming more than bacteria, turning into a higher life form. Overall, as started before, we see evidence of adaptation within species, but not everything coming from nothing. Darwin also thought that cells were simple building blocks and if they were found to be more complex, which they clearly are, he would be wrong.
  • PleaseUseLogic
    Wow. This is a stunning work about ignoring facts. First of all, this is saying that essentially all biologists are either wrong or lying. Also, don’t say “why do we even bother talking about this, god made it.” If you can say that with a straight face, you should go into theater. Any theory should be doubted, whatever your personal beliefs. Yes, I am a Christian. To respond to brotherjoseph’s first comment, the simple answer is no. No actual biologist would say a stack of bricks would turn into a building. That violates both common sense and physics. To his second statement, he is misinterpreting the postulation. What it is saying is that a lot of things can happen randomly; they just take a really long time. Theoretically, the monkey would press the keys in just the right order to play Beethoven. Also, saying that humans can’t do something doesn’t mean that it is impossible. Yes, we don’t understand a lot; that doesn’t mean that what we do understand is false. To everyone that says “Oh, it should be in the fossil record!” the answer is not necessarily. Most fossils are either imprints or bones. Bacteria don’t have bones, and imprints of something microscopic are hard to identify.
  • PleaseUseLogic
    To everyone who says “Beings adapt, not evolve” that is nonsensical. “Adapting” is microevolution. What you call evolution is macroevolution. What is the difference between adaptation and evolution? Essentially, scale. One creates new species, and one changes your skin color. However, both things occur by exactly the same process. In response to Skip, evolution is the creation of new traits via mutations; mutations are the path that lead to new traits. To what Nadine Yacoub said in his first comment, that is false. While apes do have two more chromosomes than us, we both have essentially the same genes. The two just fused together to become one chromosome. Something like this could happen, or a large chromosome could split apart. Yes, this is unlikely. However, unlikely does not mean impossible.The thing you don’t seem to understand for your fourth argument is that evolution takes a very long time. Like, several million years. Also, macroevolution has been seen to occur. Did you actually look this up? If not, please do. To what KARS said, that is the viewpoint of an utterly closeminded person who would fit well in the 1000s. Keep an open mind.
  • VinnieDaBest
    Somatic mutations occur in non-productive cells and won’t be passed onto offsprings Germ line mutation occur in reproductive cells which are passed onto offsprings The cause of mutation is a DNA that fails to copy accurately, when a cell divides it makes a copy of it’s DNA and sometimes the copy in not quite perfect. That small difference from the original DNA sequence is a mutation.
  • Sabrina Peabody
    PleaseUseLogic, You made some points that I think some people would like to discuss further. However, while you do continue to comment, please do not line them with words that will not edify others and may not promote a positive discussion. Calling people ignorant and closed-minded does not foster the kind of communication we would like on this website. An exchange of ideas in a constructive way would be wonderful! Thank you
  • benjaminlight
    PleaseUseLogic, I don’t see facts that have been ignored so much as I see certain dogmas of science that have been challenged, and that is the core of how science works. People looking at the available evidence and postulating possible reasons for what they see, what we refer to as a theory. This is what Darwin did. With his somewhat limited understanding of science at his time… this is what scientists are doing today - but the problem is, many scientists today have tunnel vision. They are working within certain dogmas of the scientific field, evolution being one of them. To step out against evolution means losing your tenure, to write articles that even mention the possibility of design - means not getting published, the scientific establishment - the very establishment that should be encouraging skepticism, is stifling it in the name of ‘science’. If you can look at the world around you, and come to the conclusion that all of this happened randomly over a long period of time… that the intricate behaviors and actions of honeybees, the chemical ballet dance that is the malate shuttle, or any other host of things (continued)
  • benjaminlight
    (continued from previous post) found in the structure and interaction of living organisms, then I don’t know how effective this reply will even be, but… You are correct in stating that we desperately need to clarify our terms a bit - to say that organisms adapt and don’t evolve is erroneous. The purest definition of evolution is change in a population over time, which is verifiable. Additionally - natural selection, absolutely positively occurs, which leads to these changes over time. We do need to ensure that we make a distinction between microevolution (small-scale, short term evolution of a population as we observe in bacteria, as well as other rapidly reproducing populations of organisms) and macroevolution (long-term, large changes in populations of organisms that can lead to one ‘kind’ of organisms becoming something different), often scientists refer to this as speciation. Speciation occurs when a population of organisms becomes different enough from the original population that they can no longer interbreed (either from behavioral or physical differences) or produce viable offspring (ie. sterile hybrids, or other post-zygotic controls) Speciation DOES occur. (cont.)
  • benjaminlight
    It can be verified and seen in situations where organisms are isolated from one another geographically, post disaster, or a myriad of other reasons. This can result in organisms that are a different species, or at the very least, different sub species. All of that can be verified by hard evidence, though a little less so in the case of speciation to be fair. (Because they choose not to reproduce with one another doesn’t necessarily mean they are incapable, artificial insemination could produce an offspring that would be able to reproduce particularly in short-term allopatric speciation type situations. … and herein lies the problem with Evolution. Individual components of the theory are verifiable. Natural Selection occurs, Microevolution can occur, Macroevolution in certain circumstances can occur, but to take those three bits of verifiable evidence, and say… The building blocks of life spontaneously arose in a primordial sea, it coalesced, began to live, began to reproduce, changed over a very long period of time into a variety of organisms, which populate the earth today. That takes a larger leap of faith in my mind than belief in a Creator. (continued)
  • benjaminlight
    (continued from previous - last one I promise) Which is the core of your first point in response to BrotherJoseph. The statistical odds of this occuring is next to zero, and if you seat a monkey at a piano, his random plinking will never become Beethoven, his random keystrokes will never write the works of Shakespeare… As soon as he makes a mistake, even once - the piece is ruined and his random plinking has to start over - hitting the exact same keystrokes up to that point again… It is the same with life - one small chemical mistake late enough in the game and it becomes some inert organic compound, not a living thing. You are correct in stating that “It’s not in the fossil Record!!” is an erroneous argument. Not all organisms fossilize, and looking for a single missing link isn’t accurate - it’s as though blue shifts to red, and all the color differences in between represent transitional organisms - it’s small incremental change over a really long period of time. HOWEVER. Some of those interim fossils WILL exist. Particularly as we get further up the chain of organisms, and the fact that we haven’t found many of them is problematic to evolutionary theory. (continued)
  • benjaminlight
    (continued from previous) Which means we’re placing a lot of faith in fossils that haven’t been discovered - yet scientists consider their position to be PURELY evidence based, and attack those who place faith in a Creator as being ignorant and closed minded. That is inaccurate. It becomes a question of what you place your faith in… You discuss mutations as a path to new traits. Mutation often can cause changes, but more frequently - causes detriments to the organism. It also depends as Vinnie commented on the type of mutation. Genetic variation and Natural Selection itself acting on that variation is more valuable to the change of a species. Regarding the chromosome argument, new research is indicating that we are actually more different than chimps than we originally thought we were. It was published in Nature in 2010, and focused on the differences in the Y chromosome. While not comprehensive, it shows us that the old mantra “We’re 99.8% similar to chimps” is not accurate. You finished your comment with how I will finish mine. Evolution is a highly charged issue - with many sides. Just because I don’t believe evolution has occured - doesn’t mean that I am (continued)
  • benjaminlight
    (continued from previous) Sent before I could fix the last section… scratch the last paragraph. I will finish my series of comments in the same way that you finished yours. Just because I don’t believe that large scale evolution occured, (that life spontaneously arose, began to live, reproduced and changed into what we see today) doesn’t mean I am uneducated, ignorant, and close-minded. I have simply chosen not to accept the scientific dogmas that were fed to me in college. I have studied this topic extensively and I have come to a different conclusion than you have. That doesn’t make my conclusion any less valid than your own. In fact, I would implore you to the do the same thing you implored the rest of us to do. Keep an open mind. Cheers, Ben
  • PleaseUseLogic
    In response to BenjaminLight’s first paragraph, yes, there is some herd mentality to this; nobody likes to be an outcast. However, still many biologists support evolution. The Discovery Institute gathered around 600 signatures from scientists who disagree with evolution. Project Steve found around 1,250 biologists named Steve, or several variations thereof, such as Stephen, Stephanie, Esteban, and other similar things. All this was done anonymously; no names were given. While you can argue indoctrination, or fear of being hunted down by evolutionist hunter-killer robots, that is still overwhelming evidence towards the scientific community supporting evolution, or at least a large portion of it doing so. In your later comments in your first post, you said that scientists don’t reject scientific dogmas enough. While this is probably true, just because something is widely supported among scientists and is this polarized does not mean that it is automatically wrong. For your argument that says “look at all the beautiful, complex things out there” is inherently flawed. Just because something looks like it is impossible to replicate with nature doesn’t mean that it is impossible(cont)
  • PleaseUseLogic
    It’s hard to believe that each twinkling star is a giant fusing ball of hydrogen. That doesn’t mean it’s not true. Also, interim fossils have been found for several things. While not for everything, it is enough to show that macroevolution does occur. I recommend looking up dolphin evolution. There are several other examples of a fairly complete fossil record showing a gradual change from one species to another.
  • Light
    I don’t know how evidence is faith based; it’s right there for you. There are some strange arguments here, like with the bacteria one. Evolution doesn’t ‘create’ a more complex organism, just one that is more successful than it competitors. And evolution isn’t small and incremental. Organisms stay roughly the same for millions of years, until a change in the environment demands they change. But evolution is a theory that all science points to. There isn’t an example the points to a supernatural god or deity.
  • benjaminlight
    PleaseUseLogic, I agree - many more scientists believe in evolution than don’t. I’m just saying I find it fascinating that a discipline that prides itself on skepticism sure doesn’t like people moving from the party line so to speak. Cetacean evolution is a mess - with a lot of assumptions based on some pretty hairy interim fossils. I also didn’t say it was impossible - just statistically approaching zero. The odds of it happening are like hitting the lottery day after day after day after day. Nothing is impossible, but stastically approaching zero might as well be for all intents and purposes. To state that it occured is like stating that this happened not once, but again and again and again. What are the odds? Light, Evidence is faith based when you take the ‘evidence’ that you see and make the jump to illustrate what you want to see and what proves your idea versus letting the evidence speak for itself. A small section of jawbone that is found as a fragment is not enough to realistically infer an evolutionary relationship. Unfortunately it happens all the time. Sometimes it gets caught, sometimes it doesn’t. Remember Archeoraptor?
  • PleaseUseLogic
    In response to BenjaminLight’s latest comment: Scientists don’t like people saying that evolution is false in the same way scientists don’t like people saying that the earth is flat or that the sun orbits around the earth. It is demonstrably true. Also, saying that something approaches zero is not the same thing as saying that it is zero. When you have millions of years, the difference between zero and almost zero becomes a huge gap. Also, scientists don’t (or at least shouldn’t) say that a scrap of jaw is evidence. That is clearly bad science. However, there are many examples of complete transitional fossils. Also, yes, there have been hoaxes. That doesn’t mean that those are the majority of the data. Don’t mistake anecdotes for data.
  • KARS
    Now I know this is old timer stuff. Let’s think on this. The movie: “Grapes of Wrath” The time: The dust bowl of the 30’s. So what happened? A serious draught. So what did they do? Moved to adapted to a new area. That is what God’s creatures and man do. Move or adapted to their new enviroment. Makes commend sense to me. Survival of the phitis (I don’t know how to spell this word), hopeful you know what I am trying to say.
  • benjaminlight
    My apologies for not getting back to this sooner - I am not receiving the notifications of new comments. :( You’re correct in saying that scientists don’t like people saying evolution is false, but you’re incorrect in stating that its demonstrably true. We went through this in an earlier comment so I won’t belabor it - individual components of evolution are absolutely true, however when you put the whole thing together, it’s an explanation of observable data that is quite incomplete in its explanation. A true scientist will admit this fact readily and many still place their faith in its explanation. There are incredible holes in numerous animal lines, and while we’re not looking for specific ‘missing links’ perse (an organism that is THE definitive in-between) it is troubling how many of the organisms that are in-betweens that did not fossilize and survive. Again - not irrefutable proof - but troubling nonetheless. And basing entire organisms on fragments or small components happens all the time. In cetaceans even. That whole line is a mess. They use tooth and ear morphology to make links between whales today and fox-like land animals from the past… Sorry. Not good enough.
  • Joshua Infantado
    Hi Everyone, One of the latest Beyond Today program discusses this and it is really a great work! It is entitled, “Evolution’s Leap of Faith”. Anyway, even if you say that evolution really happens (which I don’t believe in), scientists still have to face the hard facts found in the complexity of DNA. Everyone who have honest eyes to see will admit that DNA is far too complex and intricate to be a product of evolution. In addition to this, evolution will never be able to explain what caused life here on earth. Even the big bang theory will not suffice. No matter how people will argue how true evolution is, it still remained as theory, which means it is still unproven.
  • Sceptic77
    I am not a scientist so by no means am I someone to have the evolution debate with. But I’m assuming the point of this article is by somehow disproving evolution it somehow proves the existence of a creator. It doesn’t. The bottom line is none of us were here a billion years ago or even a thousand years ago so we just don’t know how we started. The debate for a creator or no creator is not 50/50. There are an infinite number of possibilities for how life started and none of us have the answer. The burden of proof is on the believer and not the skeptic. Funny how the creationist expects air tight evidence to support any scientific theory yet faith and lack of answers are more than enough to believe in a specific God. Sad that people think that we are the centre of the universe and everything was created for us. The fact that we are here and can’t prove how is not a reasonable explanation for a creator. Even if there is a creator how do you know that he is immortal? That he can hear your prayers? That there is an afterlife? You can’t. Stop expecting proof against your beliefs when you can’t provide proof in favor of your beliefs.
  • Pages

Join the conversation!

Log in or register to post comments